I know a lot of people are rooting for the American Chestnut to make a comeback so I thought some news about what's going on with the genetic engineering efforts would be appreciated. The headline...
I know a lot of people are rooting for the American Chestnut to make a comeback so I thought some news about what's going on with the genetic engineering efforts would be appreciated.
The headline ("Genetic engineering was meant to save chestnut trees. Then there was a mistake.") sounds a bit overblown to me; does anyone else get that sense? It wasn't performing up to expectations and then they discovered that they were testing the wrong thing. While I'd like to see the American Chestnut come back as much as anybody, this doesn't sound like that big of an issue, especially if the mixup was only seven years ago.
I haven't been able to read this article yet due to the paywall, but I have been following the Darling 58 Chestnut progress over the past year hoping for the U.S. government to approve it soon....
I haven't been able to read this article yet due to the paywall, but I have been following the Darling 58 Chestnut progress over the past year hoping for the U.S. government to approve it soon. From what I understand of that particular tree, the article title seems overblown and click bait-y. Unless there has been some new announcement towards the negative of the species in the last week which I haven't heard of yet.
I'm sure it's an interesting article about some of the difficulty they've experienced in the past, but the title is drawing on fears of genetic engineering to pull in readers, which really hurts because the Darling 58 has a real chance of revitalizing the forests of America.
It does sound a bit like there might have been a fatal mistake (so the project failed), rather than just a setback. It's not what either the headline or the article literally says, though.
It does sound a bit like there might have been a fatal mistake (so the project failed), rather than just a setback. It's not what either the headline or the article literally says, though.
"Then there was a mistake" invokes Jurassic Park vibes. Like these scientists were naively messing with genetic modification without understanding the potential ramifications, and now these...
"Then there was a mistake" invokes Jurassic Park vibes. Like these scientists were naively messing with genetic modification without understanding the potential ramifications, and now these dangerous super trees are taking over the world.
Except there was nothing naive about the project - the Chestnut Society carefully tested and isolated all of the mislabeled trees, and are closing down sponsorship of breeding with the defective...
Except there was nothing naive about the project - the Chestnut Society carefully tested and isolated all of the mislabeled trees, and are closing down sponsorship of breeding with the defective Darling chestnut lines. These trees are the exact opposite of superdangerous - they can barely sustain themselves, and would die out quickly in the wild.
The only drama that might result is from people who receive self-terminating Darling 54 seeds from an over-attached breeder.
Yeah, it gives the feeling that it may have been much worse than it explicitly states, so perhaps they just didn't do a good job of explaining the implications. They said they have dozens of...
Yeah, it gives the feeling that it may have been much worse than it explicitly states, so perhaps they just didn't do a good job of explaining the implications. They said they have dozens of Darling 58 trees still, and I would expect them to still have the genome, so I don't understand why it would be an issue whether they have the trees or not.
I guess I had some concerns about this project. I'm not bothered by the genetic engineering in principle. However, the minimal genetic diversity seemed like a setup for the next chestnut wipeout...
I guess I had some concerns about this project. I'm not bothered by the genetic engineering in principle. However, the minimal genetic diversity seemed like a setup for the next chestnut wipeout disease.
If anything, the labeling error introduced some variety in the lineages of chestnuts with the resistance gene inserted. The results might not be optimized. Given enough data on the causes of the higher mortality rate, I'd happily try out the seeds and see what thrives where.
And... I just realized the bad problem caused by the labeling error, which the article is unclear about. If all the produced trees don't have the inserted recessive resistance gene in the exact same chromosome location, sexual reproduction in the wild won't produce seeds that fully express chestnut canker resistance. You could have great-looking resistant chestnuts that have a copy of the resistance gene on each element of chromosome Pair A, or a copy on each element of chromosome Pair B. Crossing them would mean one element of Pair A and one element of Pair B has the gene, with no expression of resistance. For purposes of chestnut restoration, Lines A and B might as well be different species of chestnut tree - they can hybridize, but the offspring are mostly unviable under continuing disease pressure.
I've been looking to include some chestnuts in our little reforestation/permaculture project, but I think I'll go for the commercially available (expensive!) American/Chinese chestnut hybrids at this point, as long as the offspring seeds are generally viable and resistant.
There's a local winery with a grove of 30 year old healthy, fruiting chestnuts that the owner says are 100% American chestnut stock. I might beg some seeds off him and give those a try, but it's also possible that American chestnut diseases just haven't reestablished here.
Edit: More details here. It's not that a mix of Darling 58 and Darling 54 existed - all the trees thought to be Darling 58 are actually Darling 54. Darling 54 was originally rejected because the resistance gene insertion broke a necessary salinity tolerance gene, and homozygous (copies of the gene on both elements of the chromosome pair) resistance is lethal. Darling 58 isn't great either - the resistance has metabolic costs to the trees.
There are many other projects in progress under American Chestnut Society sponsorship, some using a newer and more precise gene insertion technology.
I know a lot of people are rooting for the American Chestnut to make a comeback so I thought some news about what's going on with the genetic engineering efforts would be appreciated.
The headline ("Genetic engineering was meant to save chestnut trees. Then there was a mistake.") sounds a bit overblown to me; does anyone else get that sense? It wasn't performing up to expectations and then they discovered that they were testing the wrong thing. While I'd like to see the American Chestnut come back as much as anybody, this doesn't sound like that big of an issue, especially if the mixup was only seven years ago.
I haven't been able to read this article yet due to the paywall, but I have been following the Darling 58 Chestnut progress over the past year hoping for the U.S. government to approve it soon. From what I understand of that particular tree, the article title seems overblown and click bait-y. Unless there has been some new announcement towards the negative of the species in the last week which I haven't heard of yet.
I'm sure it's an interesting article about some of the difficulty they've experienced in the past, but the title is drawing on fears of genetic engineering to pull in readers, which really hurts because the Darling 58 has a real chance of revitalizing the forests of America.
The problem was that everyone was testing Darling 54, thinking it was Darling 58.
Here's the gift article. Should be paywall free.
Not cutting down trees for more strip malls and McMansions would help too!
It does sound a bit like there might have been a fatal mistake (so the project failed), rather than just a setback. It's not what either the headline or the article literally says, though.
"Then there was a mistake" invokes Jurassic Park vibes. Like these scientists were naively messing with genetic modification without understanding the potential ramifications, and now these dangerous super trees are taking over the world.
Except there was nothing naive about the project - the Chestnut Society carefully tested and isolated all of the mislabeled trees, and are closing down sponsorship of breeding with the defective Darling chestnut lines. These trees are the exact opposite of superdangerous - they can barely sustain themselves, and would die out quickly in the wild.
The only drama that might result is from people who receive self-terminating Darling 54 seeds from an over-attached breeder.
I was more making fun of the headline
Yeah, it gives the feeling that it may have been much worse than it explicitly states, so perhaps they just didn't do a good job of explaining the implications. They said they have dozens of Darling 58 trees still, and I would expect them to still have the genome, so I don't understand why it would be an issue whether they have the trees or not.
I guess I had some concerns about this project. I'm not bothered by the genetic engineering in principle. However, the minimal genetic diversity seemed like a setup for the next chestnut wipeout disease.
If anything, the labeling error introduced some variety in the lineages of chestnuts with the resistance gene inserted. The results might not be optimized. Given enough data on the causes of the higher mortality rate, I'd happily try out the seeds and see what thrives where.And... I just realized the bad problem caused by the labeling error, which the article is unclear about. If all the produced trees don't have the inserted recessive resistance gene in the exact same chromosome location, sexual reproduction in the wild won't produce seeds that fully express chestnut canker resistance. You could have great-looking resistant chestnuts that have a copy of the resistance gene on each element of chromosome Pair A, or a copy on each element of chromosome Pair B. Crossing them would mean one element of Pair A and one element of Pair B has the gene, with no expression of resistance. For purposes of chestnut restoration, Lines A and B might as well be different species of chestnut tree - they can hybridize, but the offspring are mostly unviable under continuing disease pressure.
I've been looking to include some chestnuts in our little reforestation/permaculture project, but I think I'll go for the commercially available (expensive!) American/Chinese chestnut hybrids at this point, as long as the offspring seeds are generally viable and resistant.
There's a local winery with a grove of 30 year old healthy, fruiting chestnuts that the owner says are 100% American chestnut stock. I might beg some seeds off him and give those a try, but it's also possible that American chestnut diseases just haven't reestablished here.
Edit: More details here. It's not that a mix of Darling 58 and Darling 54 existed - all the trees thought to be Darling 58 are actually Darling 54. Darling 54 was originally rejected because the resistance gene insertion broke a necessary salinity tolerance gene, and homozygous (copies of the gene on both elements of the chromosome pair) resistance is lethal. Darling 58 isn't great either - the resistance has metabolic costs to the trees.
There are many other projects in progress under American Chestnut Society sponsorship, some using a newer and more precise gene insertion technology.